-·•

-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

GEN

YES	NO
x

NAME

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
or COL'NSEl. AND OR ORGANIZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AJ\'D OR ORGA.  IZATION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBERS SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DEY

......................................:-------------l------j"-----+------+------1	4
x
x x x
x

ISSUES

INDEX NUMBER

ID(HlDJTS SUBMITfED TO THE BOARD

A92.01, A93.09, A92.21	A67.10	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW  OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING  DATE
22 OCT 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0499

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED AT  TIM E OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE  RECORDING  OF PERSONAL  APPERANCE  HEARING APPUCANT'S ISSUE AND TIIE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSEDONl'HE·ATTACHED AIR FORCf; DlSCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECJSIONAL RATIONALE.
REM-\RKS

Case heard at the Air Reserve Personnel Center, Denver, CO.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR•

.

..--------------------- :'1---------------------   ------------------------------------------------------------    :
...

-- - - - ---------J

TO:	FROM:
/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
AN DREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0499	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel at Air Reserve Personnel Center, Denver, CO, on October 22, 2003.  After acknowledging intent to appear, he failed to do so without requesting a postponement.  (NOTE:  Applicant was scheduled to appear at 0730; as of 1130 he had failed to arrive at the hearing location.  After several cellular telephone conversations with applicant and his father during the elapsed time period, applicant was unable to adequately explain why he had not yet arrived at the hearing location.)

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of/changes ofreason for discharge and change of RE code are denied.

The Board  finds that neither the evidence of record  nor that provided  by the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions from Andersen AFB, Guam.  The records indicated while there, applicant received two Articles 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, three Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included three instances of failure to go, four instances of intentionally and seriously failing to maintain his dormitory room to satisfactory
standards, and failure to perform required physical training.  Applicant also received an Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall referral "2." It stated he displayed an unwillingness to comply with simple directions, and failed his standard Entry Controller I Use of Force evaluation.  At the time of the discharge, member submitted matters in his own behalf in which he stated he accepted the discharge, and requested his duty performance at basic training and in Korea be considered in mitigation.  The DRB concluded member's behavior reflected an unacceptable pattern of misconduct, and opined that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board also concluded applicant's failure to follow instructions regarding his DRB hearing and failure to appear was further indicative of this pattern of negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct while in military service was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant infers that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service, particularly while stationed in Korea. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons that were the basis for this case.	

Issue 3.  Applicant cites personal and family problems that affected his life and ability to perform his duties after he arrived at Andersen AFB, although he fails to explain the nature of the claimed problems.  While it is understandable that a member experiencing such things has additional stress, there was no evidence submitted that applicant's problems were unique, or that he sought help from available base agencies such as the chaplain, Mental Health clinic, or Family Support Center, to deal with them.  Because member was apparently unable to separate his personal problems from his duties, he became a burden to his unit and a disruptive influence on morale and discipline.  He was either unable or unwilling to adjust his behavior, and the Board could not find sufficient mitigation to warrant a discharge upgrade.

Issue 4 applies to the applicant's post-service activities. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and is enrolled in College. However, this activity does not pertain to the period of service under review and gives no basis for an inequity or impropriety that warrant an upgrade. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade/change of reason for discharge and change of RE code, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief